# "Newsweek" cover story exposes well-funded global-warming denial machine **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 9, 2007, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037 "2007-08-09T16:59:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/161 "2007-08-15T08:02:25Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Lance Murdoch] But of course one (not huge) error is evidence of more, right? [/quote] Blatant straw man. Nobody said that. What has been said that if a secret process can be determined to have produced one major error then it is reasonable to assume that it could also have produced an unkown number of other erros of unknown magnitude. > [@](#): > > I don’t think science is writing a one-sided blog or implying nefarious motives at NASA and media conspiracies. Interesting, since the implication of nefarious motives in think-tanks and media conspricacies is exactly what this entire thread is about. The entire Newsweek article was about nefarious motives in think-tanks and media conspricacies Apparently implying nefarious motives is acceptable as long as they are attributed to the peopel you disagree with. Such hypocricy. > [@](#): > > If the doubters have the goods then they should publish them in real scientific journals.p Indeed, and they do. This has been pointed out several times, and this is why it is a lie to say that the issue has been proved scientifically. Look you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that the only science is what is published in peer reviewed journals, and then say that the issue is settled because a group like NASA or the IPCC publishes somehting that _isn’t_ peer reviwed journal material that confirms your beliefs. Either the only science is what appears in peer reviwed journals and we ignore the IPCC and NASA, or the input from groups of proponents such as the IPCC and NASA needs to be considered. You seem to want to be able to utilise the IPCC and NASA when it suits you, and when it doesn’t suit you then only peer reviwed journal material is accpetable. > [@](#): > > I hope no lurkers here are being swayed by the nonsense people in denial can spew. If it was nonsense then you could demonstrate it was nonsense. You wouldn’t be reduced to simply saying it was nonsense. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t it remind you of the creationist arguments you hear? Oh good, a blatant [Association fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). Don’t the pants that Captain Lance Murdoch is wearing remind you of the pants that Osama bin Laden wears? If this is the best you can throw out then I think any lurkers will be able to evalutae your position quite clearly. > [@](#): > > No amount of evidence is enough. After we’ve told you numerous times that very simple, basic evidence would be sufficient this is just childish. Yet again I think any lurkers will have a pretty clear impression of the strnegth of your position at this stage. All they have to do is do a threa dserach on “evidence” or “prediction” to see where we have listed the evidence that would be sufficient. > [@](#): > > This isn’t healthy skepticism it’s dangerous intransigence that props up the interests of those who wish to perpetuate the damaging practices causing this problem. A blatant ad hominem. Because you are unable to address any of the points actually made you are instead reduced to casting aspersions on the motivations of those who disagree with you. Cheap, juvenile, dishonest and a really bad tactic if you are trying to convince lurkers of the validity of your case. You will note that we skeptics have never found it necessary to cast aspersions on the motives of those who disagree with us. We find the facts and logical argument to be more than sifficient to convince anyone that our position is reasonable. > [@](#): > > And it does matter that those interests fund so much of the obfuscation machine that flies in the face not only of NASA, but of a vast array of credible scientific organizations around the globe. Wiat a minute bucko. You just said that we should be ignoring anyhting but material published in peer reviwed journals. Yet now you appeal to proponent groups such as the IPCC and NASA. Blatant hypocricy. Captain Lance Murdoch wants to be able discount think-tanks and organisations that are skeptical of AGW by saying the only thing that matters are peer reviewed journal articles, and then in the next breath he wants us to have absolute trust in the work of think-tanks and organisations that support AGW. Once again, I don’t think you’ve left any lurkers in any doubt about the strength of your position. It relies entirely on having total trust in the IPCC and other organsiations that support your opinion, and totally discounting any organsiation that disagrees with you. You can’t have it both ways. Either we ignore everything but the peer reviewed literature or we also have to take into account the findings of think-tanks such as the IPCC. Anyway at this juncture I think any lurkers will clearly see which side has produced arguments that are logically consistent and based on facts and which side has been reduced to blatant ad hominems, fallacies of association and pleas to totally ignore any htink-tank that diagrees with them whiel wholeheratedly embracing those that agree. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/162 "2007-08-15T08:22:10Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] Blatant straw man. Nobody said that. What has been said that if a secret process can be determined to have produced one major error then it is reasonable to assume that it could also have produced an unkown number of other erros of unknown magnitude. [/QUOTE] :dubious: While I do notice the fallacies you mention later, this one does look indeed like you are having your cake and eating it too. When others can find errors in the data (regardless of the “secret”) and be used in the correction that still shows the overall point is valid, the side that looks bad is the one that is distorting what the overall result is: [http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001?f=h\_latest](http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001?f=h_latest) > [@](#): > > During the “Political Grapevine” segment of the August 10 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume, guest host and chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced “to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record” and that NASA “now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921.” But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA’s revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings. According to NASA climate modeler Gavin A. Schmidt, 2005 remains the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998. > > Angle further stated that “five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.” In fact, this statement is true only for temperatures in the United States; according to NASA, all 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989. > > Angle’s report was accompanied by an on-screen graphic reading: “1998 Not So Hot.” > > From the August 10 report: > > ANGLE: The man behind the website [climateaudit.org](http://climateaudit.org) has forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Steve McIntyre had to reverse-engineer NASA’s figures because the agency refused to give him the formula it used to make the claim. And McIntyre found out NASA had made a serious mistake. NASA eventually agreed and now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921. In fact, five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II. > > NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of inconsistencies in its U.S. temperature data. According to Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a contributor to the RealClimate blog (posting as “gavin”), the correction resulted in a re-ranking of NASA’s list of the warmest years in the United States. For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States – both before and after the correction – is not statistically significant. > > According to Schmidt, the effects of the correction on annual global and hemispheric temperature data are “imperceptible”: > > … > > The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area). > > There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant. > > […] > > More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here). > > In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/163 "2007-08-15T10:29:42Z")
Actually, what I said was that there was a Y2K error, and I wasn’t sure what it was. Took a few days for the whole story to break. Y’all heard it as soon as it came out. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/164 "2007-08-15T12:41:12Z")
On my way to work so no time to dif through all the nonsense above, but No Blake, these are strawmen > [@intention](#): > > Warmers keep yelling “FIRE! FIRE!”, and saying we should immediately break out the hoses and spend trillions on CO2 prevention, > [@intention](#): > > If your side stopped worrying about trivialities like who’s funding who, and stopped spending time endlessly repeating your humorous claims of “consensus”, you’d have more time to devote to the real questions. Oh, and by the way, While the server was down last night I “did my homework” on this statement > [@intention](#): > > Returning to the OP, yes, the warming debate is “well-funded”, as Newsweek says. Here’s just a few figures: > > Mobil contribution to skeptics: $19 million > > Richard Branson’s contribution to warmers $3,000 million and it came as no surprise to me that this is an apples-to-bullshit comparison. Branson _pledged_ $3 billion to fight global warming _in the future_. He made his commendable pledge at a big press conference. ExxonMobile _spent_ its millions _in the past_. There is no data for how much money they will spend on disinformation _in the future_. They have no press conferences to announce their efforts at bolstering pseudoscience either. They want to keep this as quiet as possible. Maybe embarrassment will cause them to knock it off in the future. I don’t see tobacco companies spending much these days trying to cast doubt on the addictive nature of nicotine. And while no other billionaires have stepped up to match Branson’s gift, ExxonMobile represents only a fraction of the global energy industry. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/165 "2007-08-15T19:53:13Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Lance Murdoch] …Oh, and by the way, While the server was down last night I “did my homework” on this statement Originally Posted by intention Returning to the OP, yes, the warming debate is “well-funded”, as Newsweek says. Here’s just a few figures: Mobil contribution to skeptics: $19 million Richard Branson’s contribution to warmers $3,000 million and it came as no surprise to me that this is an apples-to-bullshit comparison. … [/QUOTE] Did your homework? I hate to break it to you, but you haven’t even been following this thread. Kimstu already pointed this out upthread, and I already responded to it. w. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/166 "2007-08-15T23:07:48Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] When others can find errors in the data (regardless of the “secret”) and be used in the correction that still shows the overall point is valid, the side that looks bad is the one that is distorting what the overall result is: [/QUOTE] Firstly and most importantly nobody is distorting the truth in this thread. If you think they are then show us where. If your sole point is that some skeptic somewhere is distorting the truth then it’s yet another association fallacy, and I exect better of you **GIGObuster**. Do you want me to show you thousands examples of where AGW proponents are busily distorting the truth, starting with Al Gore? Of course we all know that people on both sides of this issue are distorting the truth. It is not and never will be a valid debating technique to say that someone who happens to agree with your opponent distorts the truth. All that matters is whether your oponent is being truthful. Secondly you are still ducking **intentions** ’s point, which he made quite clearly I thought. If an accounting firm utilises a secret process to evaluate asset flows, and that secret process is shown to produce results that don’t tally with reality, then how can we trust it to produce accurate results? The accounting process being used is provably prone to serious errors. We can never know how many errors of what magnitude it has actually produced because the the whole process is secret. Instead we are asked to simply trust a system that is being kept secret that has been proven to be untrustworthy. But why should we truct a secret system that has proven to be untrustworthy? Your whole argument is in fact circular. You say that despite someone finding a glaring error the main point remains valid. But the only way that we know that the main point remains valid is because after we correct this single error the result still doesn’t differ massively from the original erroneous result. Can you not see how flawed this reasoning is? John works every Saturday and Sunday for 1 dollar a day on his holidays. His holidays encompass two weekends each year. How much does John earn on his holidays? $1+$1 = $11 $11 x 2 = $23 Therefore John earns 23 dollars a year. According to your reasoning, when someone points out that 11 x 2 = 22 and I correct that, that actually stengthens your faith in my accounting skills because it shows the overall point is valid. The impact of this one error is small. Anyone criticising my accounting skills is distorting what the overall result is. The overall result still says that John earns \>$20, so a $1 dollar error is insignificant to the overall result. This is just nonsense. If my accounting process makes such a glaring fundamental error then it is more than sufficient grounds to question the whole process. I can’t claim that since the discovered error produced a small variation from the original erroeosu result that proves the rest of my working must be correct and the general point is accurate. Mathematics doesn’t work that way. If a process is proved to be prone to error then it needs to be throroughly checked to see what errors have slipped in and where. In this case we can’t do that checking because it is all a big secret. Instead you are asking that we simply accept it because the overall devaitaion from the original erroneous estimation is, in your opinion, insignificant. Sorry for the long winded response here, but Intention already made this point elegantly above and it appears you just didn’t get what he said. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/167 "2007-08-15T23:09:55Z")
And I see that Captian Murdoch has simply ducked the issue. I think that any lurkers here will at this juncture have a pretty clear view of which side is reasonable and suported by facts, and which side is reduced to labeling the oposition’s posts as nonsense with no reason given. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/168 "2007-08-16T03:55:59Z")
Whoopsie, I’m a couple days late getting back to the thread and it’s taken a whole different direction in the meantime. Oh well, I’ll just interject this to clear up the questions directed to me earlier. > [@intention](#): > > > [@Kimstu](#): > > > > The only place that “the debate rages on” in mainstream science is within the details of the AGW hypothesis, not the fundamental nature of the hypothesis itself. At present, the AGW theory has no serious scientific competitor. > > I generally agree with this statement, **Kimstu** , but as always, the devil is in the details. […] if the “fundamental hypothesis” is “humans are influencing the climate through GHGs, land-use changes, land-cover changes, soot emissions, irrigation, and aerosol emissions”, everyone would likely agree … It’s true that the details are exceedingly complex, **intention** , but I don’t think they’re anywhere near as utterly intractable or inconsistent as you make out. In fact, I think there may be rather a tendency on your part to exaggerate comparatively minor uncertainties into something that you imagine makes an entire theory completely unworkable. After all, barely 18 months ago when you first graced these boards with your presence, [you were skeptical](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=360306) that there was any reliable evidence for any anthropogenic influence on climate at all: > [@intention on 2-24-06](#): > > I argue that the maximum size of any possible human-caused change to the climate must be small, near the limit of resolution. […] > To review: I’m not looking for evidence of global warming. The globe has been warming for 300 years. > > I’m looking for evidence that humans have caused some part of that warming. I’m glad that you’ve now come around to the mainstream scientific view far enough to agree that humans **are** significantly influencing global climate. I think that just as you were somewhat over-cautious last year about accepting the idea of any significant anthropogenic influence whatsoever on climate (especially since the nature of the climate-science consensus has not noticeably changed between then and now), you’re now being somewhat over-cautious about accepting the basic AGW hypothesis itself, even though you agree that there is at present no alternative scientific theory that can seriously compete with it. > [@intention](#): > > Some clarification from you of the exact “fundamental hypothesis” you think everyone agrees on would be useful here. Sure. I’m quoting from the article “The Physical Science behind Climate Change” by Collins et al. in this month’s _Scientific American_: > [@](#): > > Scientists are confident that humans have interfered with the climate and that further human-induced climate change is on the way. > > The principal driver of recent climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. To elaborate: while other human activities have indeed contributed significantly to climate change over the past couple centuries, the past few decades have seen a “takeover” by greenhouse-gas emissions as the main factor in anthropogenic climate change. And the dominance of greenhouse-gas emissions as a driver of climate change is predicted to go on increasing in the coming decades. This fundamental AGW hypothesis does not really contradict any of the other observations you pointed out, if you look at their details. Let’s examine a few: > [@intention](#): > > NASA says that landuse changes may have had more effect on temperatures than CO2. I think this must be a reference to the 2002 [article](http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020926landcover.html) by Pielke Sr. et al., which was partially funded by NASA (and partially by the NSF), but was not actually authored by NASA. In this article, the authors are evaluating the comparative climate impacts of land-use changes and greenhouse-gas emissions over the past 300 years, not just the most recent decades: > [@](#): > > “Through landcover changes over the last 300 years, we may have already altered the climate more than would occur associated with the radiative effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide.” No mainstream climate scientist would deny that for most of the past 300 years, greenhouse-gas emissions have been a comparatively small part of the total anthropogenic climate impact. But that doesn’t at all invalidate the claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have **recently** become much more important. > [@intention](#): > > A recent study says that the “brown haze” of aerosols over Asia is the major contributor to temperature rises in that region. Another study says the largest influence on recent Arctic warming is soot on the snow capturing increased heat. First, if you’re talking about the [recent _Nature_ letter by Ramanathan et al. on “brown cloud solar absorption”](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html), the authors don’t say quite what you say; they suggest that “atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends”, not that brown clouds are “the major contributor”. (They also note that the clouds also contribute to surface cooling and thus may significantly **mask** greenhouse-gas warming, as well as competing with it. Furthermore, the brown clouds themselves are **also** caused largely by fossil fuel consumption.) Second, if you’re talking about [the recent UC Irvine study by Zender et al. on dirty snow in the Arctic](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606113327.htm), the authors don’t say that the soot is “the largest influence” on recent Arctic warming; they say it caused somewhere between 30% and 94% of the total Arctic warming over the past 200 years, which is not the same thing. (NB: **intention** , I cannot tell you how fervently I wish you would provide specific cites for your vague claims about “a study” and “another study” and so forth when you first mention them. I don’t at all mind checking out the sources for particular claims, but it’s quite tedious to have to try to figure out which sources you’re talking about in the first place because you forgot to specify them.) > [@intention](#): > > And even the IPCC estimates that up to half of the warming of the last century may have been caused by solar changes. Yup, but again, note the timeframe here. The consensus view does not in any way contradict the possibility that **until quite recently** , other radiative forcings such as changes in solar output were more important than anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In short, none of the research results you mentioned are actually incompatible with the fundamental AGW hypothesis as outlined above. > [@intention](#): > > You guys have a hard time marshalling facts (not computer model results, but facts) to support your position, so you stoop to attacking people who support one side of the argument, while ignoring people who support the other side. To me, that only reveals your desperation. It’s like your constant harping on “consensus” … don’t you see how weak that makes you look? Weak? Nope. As we agreed above, the AGW hypothesis, however incomplete and flawed it currently is, is still far and away the best scientific hypothesis that has been put forth to explain the phenomena of climate change. In fact, so far it’s the **only** serious scientific hypothesis that’s been put forth in this area. All the anti-AGW arguments so far are either relatively minor nitpicks and modifications (although still very valuable for improving the AGW hypothesis), or mere metaphysical kvetching about the unsatisfactoriness of using computer models to do science. The critics and skeptics of the AGW hypothesis, however laudable their work may be in providing a scientific “loyal opposition” to scrutinize the prevailing theory carefully and relentlessly, are still essentially just footnotes to mainstream climate science, not any kind of credible alternative to it. Like it or not, it’s the skeptics who are in the position of weakness at present, and who seem likely to stay there for the foreseeable future. They’re unable so far to provide a viable alternative theory to replace the AGW hypothesis; they’re unable even to credibly refute it. The most they can do is to keep on complaining that the AGW hypothesis just somehow isn’t good enough to satisfy them. Which, alas, is not a particularly useful or impressive scientific argument. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/169 "2007-08-16T05:57:26Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] The principal driver of recent climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. [/quote] > [@Kimstu](#): > > “Through landcover changes over the last 300 years, we may have already altered the climate more than would occur associated with the radiative effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide.” (NB, these are actually Kimstu quoting others. No ,misattribution intended.) I’m having hard time reconciling these two statements, both of which you seem to agree with wholeheartedly. On the one hand you seem to agree that landcover change is likely to have altered climate more than all the greenhouse gases produced by humans. But at the same time you seem to be saying that the principle driver is burning of fossil fuels. That seems contradictory. If landcover change has produced a greater effect than all the fossil fuel burning then how can fossil fuel burning be credited as principle driver? The only possible interpretation I can see is that although fossil fuel is responsible for most of the climate change seen to date, you are arguing that it stopped being important in say, 1960, and since then fossil fuel burning has been the major contributor to climate change. If this is true then can you tell us why you believe this? Since both the rate and extent of landcover change has been accelerating in the last 40 years why woudl we assuem that it is not repsonsible for the majority of the climate change seen in the last 40 years? > [@Kimstu](#): > > …the authors don’t say that the soot is “the largest influence” on recent Arctic warming; they say it caused somewhere between 30% and 94% of the total Arctic warming over the past 200 years, which is not the same thing. This is either nitpciking or a double standard. The IPCC has only never said that the largest influence on recent global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. All they have ever said is > [@](#): > > most of the observed [global] warming over the last 50 years is likely [66% to 90% chance] to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". NASA says approximately the same thing. Yet everyone in this thread has been claiming that both the IPPC and NASA have said that fossil fuel burning is the largest contributor to global warming. Yet when someone says that 30% to 94% of the observed Arctic warming over the last 200 years is likely to have been due to the increase in soot concentrations, that supposedly doesn’t justify a claim that soot is the largest contributor to global warming. Either both sides stick precise, pedantic representations of what their sources claim, or both sides can simplify their sources as either suporting or endorsing majority contributions. To claim that a source that attributes 94% of Arctic warming to soot isn’t saying that soot is the largest influence on recent Arctic warming is either nitpickery or a double standard. It’s pedantically correct, but if so then it is pedantically correct to challenge your claims that the IPCC has said that fossil fuels are largest influence on Global warming. I’m not going to bother making such challenges because I accept that you are posting in good fiath and representing fairly, though not entirely accurately, the position of the IPCC. Similarly **Intention** has fairly, though not entirely accurately, represented his source. > [@](#): > > In short, none of the research results you mentioned are actually incompatible with the fundamental AGW hypothesis as outlined above. Of course they aren’t incompatible. They weren’t intended to be ncompatible. They were intended to show that other factors are quite plausibly capable of driving climate in the direction we have seen. You only have to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” or look at the thread I linked to in my first post here to see that many people believe, and several have implied in this thread, that the entire cliamte pattern of the last 100 years can only be explained by fossil fuel greenhouse gas contributions. By admitting that in fact the hypothesis at best is required for recent time periods you considerably weaken the explanatory power of the hypothesis. > [@](#): > > Weak? Nope. As we agreed above, the AGW hypothesis, however incomplete and flawed it currently is, is still far and away the best scientific hypothesis that has been put forth to explain the phenomena of climate change. In fact, so far it’s the **only** serious scientific hypothesis that’s been put forth in this area. All the anti-AGW arguments so far are either relatively minor nitpicks and modifications (although still very valuable for improving the AGW hypothesis), or mere metaphysical kvetching about the unsatisfactoriness of using computer models to do science. First off who elected you to the position where you get to decide whether a scientific hypothesis is serious or not? Secondly, since when did science require putting forward alternatives in order to challenge an hypothesis? If I propose that a CIA conspiracy is the cause of Gulf War Syndrome, or that vaccines are the cause of autism, does that mean that you are forced to accept the existence of CIA conspiracies and vaccine induced autism because you can’t put forward an alternative hypothesis? Of course not. It isn’t a flaw to refute a scientific hypothesis without having an alternative barrow to push. Implying otherwise, as you just did, is a blatant attempt to poison the well. Not all things are able to be explained by science right now. That doesn’t mean we are obliged to accept a weak and flawed scientific explanation simply because it is a scientific explanation. > [@](#): > > The critics and skeptics of the AGW hypothesis, however laudable their work may be in providing a scientific “loyal opposition” to scrutinize the prevailing theory carefully and relentlessly, are still essentially just footnotes to mainstream climate science, not any kind of credible alternative to it. Once again, blatant attempt to poison the well. Science doesn’t work this way. I am not obliged to acccept that vaccines cause autism just because I can’t offer an alterniative as to what does cause autism. People who have challenged the “vaccine causes autism” hypothesis are not mere footnotes because they didn’t put forward an alternative. It is sufficient that they debunked the hypothesis itself. The root causes of autism remain just as unknown as they were before anyone linked it to vaccination, that doesn’t mean we have to accept the vaccine theory just because it is the only serious scientific theory, nor are the vaccine skeptics mere footnotes. Poisoning the well is not avalid debating technique. It doesn’t matter if the sole contribution of AGW skeptics is to demolish the hypothesis and offer no alternative, just as vaccine skeptics did. All that matter is that they are able do so. To suggets otherwise is disingenuous, unscientific and not a valid debtaing technique: -10 points. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/170 "2007-08-16T06:04:40Z")
Kimstu, good to hear from you again. Thanks for your reply. You had said: [QUOTE=Kimstu] The only place that “the debate rages on” in mainstream science is within the details of the AGW hypothesis, not the fundamental nature of the hypothesis itself. At present, the AGW theory has no serious scientific competitor. [/QUOTE] In response to my question about what you meant by the “AGW hypothesis”, you define it as: [QUOTE=Kimstu] To elaborate: while other human activities have indeed contributed significantly to climate change over the past couple centuries, the past few decades have seen a “takeover” by greenhouse-gas emissions as the main factor in anthropogenic climate change. [/QUOTE] Now, I’m not clear about what differentiates a debate on the “details” versus a debate on the “fundamental nature”. For example, adjusted for El Nino, temperatures have been stable for the last decade. This is not predicted by the GHG hypothesis, as GHGs have been rising over that time. Nor is it shown in any of the computer models. The claim has been made that solar influences went level about 1985 or so. While there is debate about this claim, given that there is a postulated lag in the solar effect on climate (the famous “in the pipeline” of the AGW supporters), this would lead to the warming flattening out at the end of the century. Thus, the flat temperature record post 1997 could be due to solar influence. Does this constitute a question about “details”, or about “fundamental nature”? Let’s take another example. The climate sensitivity has been estimated by a variety of scientists as being from 0.2°/W-m2 to 1.5°/W-m2. If it is at the high end, GHGs are likely the most important factor in the climate discussion. If it is at the low end, GHGs are among the least important factors. Does this debate constitute a question about “details”, or about “fundamental nature”? If you say that these debates are about the details, then the details are extremely important, because one way the GHGs mean nothing and the other way they are all-important … like I said, the devil is in the details. And if these debates are about the fundamental nature of the hypothesis, then your original statement is not correct. Your choice, I truly don’t know the answer … w. PS - What evidence do you have to support the AGW hypothesis? You keep saying in essence that there is no other hypothesis that fits the facts, that there is no “serious scientific competitor” … but that’s not evidence of any kind. It keeps getting trotted out by AGW proponents, in the form of “We can’t think of anything else that might cause phenomenon X, so it must be CO2”. My take is that you are far too intelligent to fall for that kind of reasoning. To give one example of many, for decades there was “no serious scientific competitor” to the theory that ulcers were caused by stress … but the theory was still wrong, in the end ulcers were found to be caused by _helicobacter pylori_. Nor are computer model runs evidence, I’ve written too many models, and seen too many physically impossible results from GCMs, to ever believe that. Some GCM model runs even predict another ice age starting in 50 years or so. Would you call that evidence that we should spend billions to avert the upcoming ice age? So where is the evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct? (What would constitute evidence? Well, temperatures since 1998 are evidence … but they are evidence that the AGW hypothesis is not correct …) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/171 "2007-08-16T07:11:28Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > First off who elected you to the position where you get to decide whether a scientific hypothesis is serious or not? Huh? I’m not saying I’m the one who gets to decide that. I’m just describing the current status of the AGW hypothesis in the view of the climate science research community as a whole. If you, on the other hand, think you know of another consistent, comprehensive climate-science theory that is regarded as a serious and credible alternative to the AGW hypothesis within the scientific community, feel free to point it out, along with your evidence that it is indeed so regarded. The rest of your post seems to consist mostly of similar misreadings of what I said. Just to take one example: > [@Blake](#): > > Secondly, since when did science require putting forward alternatives in order to challenge an hypothesis? […] It isn’t a flaw to refute a scientific hypothesis without having an alternative barrow to push. You evidently missed my point about AGW skeptics being unable **either** to provide a viable alternative to the AGW hypothesis **or** to conclusively refute it: > [@Kimstu](#): > > […] the battle could be seriously reopened in the future if the AGW skeptics ever managed to come up with a competing theory that did anywhere near as good a job of explaining the observed phenomena, or if they managed to come up with a genuinely irresolvable problem with the AGW hypothesis itself. […] > > Like it or not, it’s the skeptics who are in the position of weakness at present, and who seem likely to stay there for the foreseeable future. They’re unable so far to provide a viable alternative theory to replace the AGW hypothesis; they’re unable even to credibly refute it. Sure, it’s quite true that a weak hypothesis can be refuted or disproved before being replaced by a better hypothesis. My point is just that so far, the AGW skeptics haven’t been able to accomplish either one. In fact, thanks in large part to the skeptics’ diligence in pointing out flaws and uncertainties that need working on, the AGW hypothesis has ended up after several decades’ avid scrutiny stronger and more widely supported than ever. > [@intention](#): > > Now, I’m not clear about what differentiates a debate on the “details” versus a debate on the “fundamental nature”. Then I’m afraid I don’t understand at all what your argument is. Because a couple of posts ago, I said (and repeated it in my last post): > [@Kimstu](#): > > The only place that “the debate rages on” in mainstream science is within the details of the AGW hypothesis, not the fundamental nature of the hypothesis itself. At present, the AGW theory has no serious scientific competitor. And you replied: > [@intention](#): > > I generally agree with this statement, **Kimstu** , but as always, the devil is in the details. Now you seem to be saying that you **don’t** agree with me that the debate in mainstream climate science is about the details of the AGW hypothesis rather than its fundamental nature, because you’re not clear what the difference is. Okay, but then I don’t understand what you were trying to say earlier when you claimed to “generally agree” with that statement. Could you clarify? > [@intention](#): > > For example, adjusted for El Nino, temperatures have been stable for the last decade. […] The claim has been made that solar influences went level about 1985 or so. […] The climate sensitivity has been estimated by a variety of scientists as being from 0.2°/W-m2 to 1.5°/W-m2. Again, could you please provide cites to the specific studies you’re talking about with regard to these general assertions? Or if you have cited them in previous posts that I somehow missed, could you indicate which post(s) contain the links to your earlier cites? As you note, details are important, and I don’t want to risk misunderstanding the details of your argument by trying to infer them from my attempts to interpret vague remarks yanked out of their original contexts. > [@intention](#): > > Nor are computer model runs evidence I’m afraid the only possible response to that is “Sez you”. Seriously, if the vast majority of peer-reviewed published scientific research (in many other fields as well as climate science) is willing to take the results of computer simulations into account when evaluating the performance of a hypothesis, then you are essentially asserting that the evidentiary standards of present-day mainstream science are not good enough for you. If that’s the way you feel about it, that’s fine by me. But surely you see that in that case, there’s no point at all in trying to discuss present-day mainstream science with you. You don’t trust it. Case closed. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/172 "2007-08-16T07:41:20Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] I’m not saying I’m the one who gets to decide that. I’m just describing the current status of the AGW hypothesis in the view of the climate science research community as a whole. [/quote] So once again it comes down to the old chestnut that the science has been done by consenus. Science isn’t done by consenus, indeed it has no place for consensus. The views of “the climate science research community as a whole” are totally irrelevant and nothing more than an argument from popularity. > [@](#): > > You evidently missed my point about AGW skeptics being unable **either** to provide a viable alternative to the AGW hypothesis **or** to conclusively refute it: Define “conclusively refuted”? Nothing in science is ever “conclusively refuted”, as evidenced by Einstein rejectig quantum mechanics until the day he died. All that we can say is that either an hypothesis is scientific or it is not. Since AGW fails to make testable predictiosn or open itself to falsification then it can’t be refuted scientifically. Simple question Kimstu: what evidence could I practically collect that would constitute refuation of AGW in your eyes? > [@](#): > > Seriously, if the vast majority of peer-reviewed published scientific research (in many other fields as well as climate science) is willing to take the results of computer simulations into account when evaluating the performance of a hypothesis, then you are essentially asserting that the evidentiary standards of present-day mainstream science are not good enough for you. You seem to misunderstand the situation. In other fields computer simulations are used to bolster a position that has already made predictions and been subject to falsification through other means. In my own field for example I’ve seen many simulations that attmept to reconstruct paleo-landscapes. That’s not a problem becaue the hypothesis they seek to examine has already been well tested via field trials, carbon isotope analysis and many other means. The models are used to confirm the alreayd well established and tested position. In the case of AGW the only predictions and scope for falsification are the models. The hypothesis hasn’t make any other menaingful testable predictions (see my earlier posts for the standard of meaningful in this context). It relies entirely on the models for its scientific credibility. If you can tell me one other field where a hypotheis has been widely accpeted without making a single meaningful prediction that can be confirmed in the real world then I will accept this criticism. If not then I reject it out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/173 "2007-08-16T08:14:56Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] In this case we can’t do that checking because it is all a big secret. Instead you are asking that we simply accept it because the overall devaitaion from the original erroneous estimation is, in your opinion, insignificant. Sorry for the long winded response here, but Intention already made this point elegantly above and it appears you just didn’t get what he said. [/QUOTE] That is because it still seems that it is you who is not getting where I’m coming from. The data is not secret, anyone can then apply their own methods and find flaws by showing where and how something was missed. If you are correct, I would expect that even more flaws would have been found, I agree with Schmidt, the effects of the correction on annual global and hemispheric temperature data are “imperceptible”, the overall results did not change much, The particular results of the critic were acknowledged and used to make corrections, if you still want to insist in the point that the early effort is a big secret and that that will stop anyone from checking then **the new readings coming from the critic should be useless** or they could be impossible to plug to the early results. IOW, it seems to me the critic was not willing to get boggled down by the fact that the early study methodology was a “big secret”. Good for him. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/174 "2007-08-16T11:16:30Z")
Kimstu, your responses are always thought provoking. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by intention > Now, I’m not clear about what differentiates a debate on the “details” versus a debate on the “fundamental nature”. > > Then I’m afraid I don’t understand at all what your argument is. Because a couple of posts ago, I said (and repeated it in my last post): > Quote: > Originally Posted by Kimstu > The only place that “the debate rages on” in mainstream science is within the details of the AGW hypothesis, not the fundamental nature of the hypothesis itself. At present, the AGW theory has no serious scientific competitor. > > And you replied: > Quote: > Originally Posted by intention > I generally agree with this statement, Kimstu, but as always, the devil is in the details. > > Now you seem to be saying that you don’t agree with me that the debate in mainstream climate science is about the details of the AGW hypothesis rather than its fundamental nature, because you’re not clear what the difference is. > > Okay, but then I don’t understand what you were trying to say earlier when you claimed to “generally agree” with that statement. Could you clarify? I apologize for my lack of clarity, Kimstu. When I said “the devil is in the details”, I meant that the details often turn out to be the fundamental questions, so that it is not possible to distinguish between debate about the details and debate about the “fundamental nature”. That’s why I gave several examples and asked if they are details or fundamental. I’m sorry you chose not to answer that question. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by intention > For example, adjusted for El Nino, temperatures have been stable for the last decade. […] The claim has been made that solar influences went level about 1985 or so. […] The climate sensitivity has been estimated by a variety of scientists as being from 0.2°/W-m2 to 1.5°/W-m2. > > Again, could you please provide cites to the specific studies you’re talking about with regard to these general assertions? Or if you have cited them in previous posts that I somehow missed, could you indicate which post(s) contain the links to your earlier cites? > > As you note, details are important, and I don’t want to risk misunderstanding the details of your argument by trying to infer them from my attempts to interpret vague remarks yanked out of their original contexts. I’m not clear why you need a citation to these things, as they are common knowledge. However, for the question of the temperatures of the last decade, I refer you to either HadCRUT3 or GISS temperature dataset. You will see that they have not been rising since 1998. They have been lower than 1998, but as a host of people have pointed out, that was an El Nino year. The MEI data is available [here,](http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html) I invite you to regress it on the temperature data to remove the El Nino influence and report back on the resulting trend. For the change in the direct solar contribution around 1985, I refer you the [post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8770339&postcount=6) saying: > [@](#): > > Third: If you’re arguing that increased solar radiation is what’s causing increased global temperatures, how do you reconcile that with the findings mentioned in the OP that solar radiation has actually been decreasing rather than increasing? The solar magnetic contribution rose until 1985, started dropping, and then has been increasing since the late 1990s, which I referred to in shorthand as leveling off in 1985. But you knew that … since you’re the author of the post quoted above. At the low end of climate estimates, I have [referred](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8136906&postcount=130) in the past to [this study.](http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/idso98.htm) You could also take a look at [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8121200&postcount=126) of mine, which refers to [this study.](http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity) For the high end, see the IPCC FAR, which gives a “likely” value of 0.5° to 1.2°/W-m2, says it is “unlikely” to be below 0.4°/W-m2, and that values over 1.2°/W-m2 “cannot be excluded”. But surely you are aware of these things … or if not, what is the source of your certainty about the climate question? > [@kimstu](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by intention > Nor are computer model runs evidence > > I’m afraid the only possible response to that is “Sez you”. So you’re saying that climate model runs that indicate we’re going into an ice age in 50 years are evidence that we are going into an ice age? (I asked this before, and I would greatly appreciate if you’d actually answer the questions I ask … asking them twice is getting boring.) And if it’s not evidence that we’re heading into an ice age … why not? > [@Kimstu](#): > > Seriously, if the vast majority of peer-reviewed published scientific research (in many other fields as well as climate science) is willing to take the results of computer simulations into account when evaluating the performance of a hypothesis, then you are essentially asserting that the evidentiary standards of present-day mainstream science are not good enough for you. > > If that’s the way you feel about it, that’s fine by me. But surely you see that in that case, there’s no point at all in trying to discuss present-day mainstream science with you. You don’t trust it. Case closed. Kimstu, I’m happy to take computer models into account, I use computers extensively and have been programming them for 44 years, perhaps longer than you’ve been alive. But “taking them into account”, which (as you point out) everyone does, does not mean they are evidence in the way that experimental data and real-world measurements are evidence. Experimental data and real-world measurements are facts. Computer results are not, and there is a huge difference. Nor, despite your claims, is this different in other fields. If you say “I’ve discovered a new fundamental particle”, and people ask “Where’s the evidence?”, and you say “My computer model proves it exists”, the scientific response would be “Come back when you have some evidence for the existence of your particle”. The modeling of subatomic particles is much better, and the theoretical understanding of subatomic physics is much better, than the modeling or theoretical understanding of climate. And yet we still spend billions on superconducting atom smashers. Why? Because the computer models can only give us indications or understandings, we can certainly “take them into account”, but they cannot give us evidence, they cannot provide us with facts. Only the real world can do that. If you said “I have evidence that cold fusion is real”, and when asked for your evidence you said “I’ve modeled it in my computer”, nobody will say you have evidence for cold fusion. That’s not evidence, that’s not a fact, that’s a computer model result. Yes, computers are extensively used in mainstream science, and I’ve written computer models of a few processes myself. But the day has not yet arrived when model results are considered in any field (except climate science) to be evidence, to be facts in the same sense as actual measurements or experimental results. This is because, at the end of the day, computer models represent only the understandings (and prejudices) of their creators, the programmers who built them, plus any errors the programmers might have made. At best, they can only tell us what will happen if each and every one of the programmers assumptions are true and the code is perfectly error free. Even this best case is not evidence, it is not facts, it is just a confirmation of the programmer’s assumptions. You have heard the expression GIGO, which is “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. This means that if you feed a perfect model with bad data, you’ll get garbage out. I use a lesser known expression, “DIGO”, which means “Diamonds In, Garbage Out” – if your model contains theoretical errors, or incorrect assumptions, or bugs, or one incorrect line, or inaccurate parameterizations, even if the data you put in are diamonds, you’ll get garbage out. Computer calculations showed that the Mars Climate Orbiter would function perfectly … but in the event, it crashed. Why? The programmers left out a single line of code to convert a single measurement from English units to metric. All the input data was perfect … but an error of one line, and millions of dollars went down the tubes. Diamonds in … garbage out. That’s why computer results are not evidence, because all too often they are just garbage. w. PS - I’d put more weight on GCM results if the programmers would perform the kind of Verification and Validation (V&V) and SQA (Software Quality Assurance) that we routinely perform on all mission critical software … but they don’t. In fact, whenever I bring this up on this board, people say it’s not necessary … not necessary? You’re asking me to bet billions of dollars on untested computer models, and even claiming that their results are “evidence”, when even the most routine, everyday, run-of-the-mill V&V & SQA has not been done? Riiiight, that’s a killer good plan … > [@Robert Heinlein](#): > > What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”–what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/175 "2007-08-16T12:33:22Z")
[QUOTE=intention] Nor, despite your claims, is this different in other fields. If you say “I’ve discovered a new fundamental particle”, and people ask “Where’s the evidence?”, and you say “My computer model proves it exists”, the scientific response would be “Come back when you have some evidence for the existence of your particle”. The modeling of subatomic particles is much better, and the theoretical understanding of subatomic physics is much better, than the modeling or theoretical understanding of climate. And yet we still spend billions on superconducting atom smashers. Why? Because the computer models can only give us indications or understandings, we can certainly “take them into account”, but they cannot give us evidence, they cannot provide us with facts. Only the real world can do that. If you said “I have evidence that cold fusion is real”, and when asked for your evidence you said “I’ve modeled it in my computer”, nobody will say you have evidence for cold fusion. That’s not evidence, that’s not a fact, that’s a computer model result. Yes, computers are extensively used in mainstream science, and I’ve written computer models of a few processes myself. But the day has not yet arrived when model results are considered in any field (except climate science) to be evidence, to be facts in the same sense as actual measurements or experimental results. This is because, at the end of the day, computer models represent only the understandings (and prejudices) of their creators, the programmers who built them, plus any errors the programmers might have made. At best, they can only tell us what will happen if each and every one of the programmers assumptions are true and the code is perfectly error free. Even this best case is not evidence, it is not facts, it is just a confirmation of the programmer’s assumptions. You have heard the expression GIGO, which is “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. This means that if you feed a perfect model with bad data, you’ll get garbage out. I use a lesser known expression, “DIGO”, which means “Diamonds In, Garbage Out” – if your model contains theoretical errors, or incorrect assumptions, or bugs, or one incorrect line, or inaccurate parameterizations, even if the data you put in are diamonds, you’ll get garbage out. Computer calculations showed that the Mars Climate Orbiter would function perfectly … but in the event, it crashed. Why? The programmers left out a single line of code to convert a single measurement from English units to metric. All the input data was perfect … but an error of one line, and millions of dollars went down the tubes. Diamonds in … garbage out. That’s why computer results are not evidence, because all too often they are just garbage. w. PS - I’d put more weight on GCM results if the programmers would perform the kind of Verification and Validation (V&V) and SQA (Software Quality Assurance) that we routinely perform on all mission critical software … but they don’t. In fact, whenever I bring this up on this board, people say it’s not necessary … not necessary? You’re asking me to bet billions of dollars on untested computer models, and even claiming that their results are “evidence”, when even the most routine, everyday, run-of-the-mill V&V & SQA has not been done? Riiiight, that’s a killer good plan … [/QUOTE] :dubious: Like if there was no check of computer models ever made: [http://whyfiles.org/218glo\_warm/index.php?g=2.txt](http://whyfiles.org/218glo_warm/index.php?g=2.txt) > [@](#): > > One technique starts by identifying the “fingerprint” – the specific climatic impact – of each natural and artificial factor, like changes in greenhouse gases, the sun, or reflective aerosols from volcanoes, that can affect climate. Using math of a complexity we couldn’t begin to grasp, Ben Santer and others at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scrutinized climate records for the fingerprints. > When this climate model started from actual 1980 conditions, it accurately predicted the temperature of the lower atmosphere. During the period, two huge volcanoes spewed out aerosols that reflected sunlight back to space, cooling the planet. The model accounted for both the arrival and eventual removal of the aerosols. Graph: Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. > > The fingerprint, he says, is “an educated guess, a physically based estimate about how climate might change in response to combined human and natural effects. Then you look for that pattern in the observed climate.” > > … > > Can climate models predict ocean temps? Researchers at Scripps Institute of Oceanography tested models with (green) and without (blue) the rising level of greenhouse gases. Only the model runs with man-made levels of greenhouse gases matched actual ocean temperatures. “The agreement between what is observed and what is expected to arise from anthropogenic forcing is excellent in all ocean basins,” says Tim Barnett, who directed this work. Notice how “standardized signal strength” moves deeper in the ocean with time. The Why Files tried mightily to understand what that means. We assume it has something to do with temperature, but our efforts to find out were met with… jargon about “standard deviations.” Courtesy Tim Barnett > > That’s an el-simplifico description of an interlocked system that is hideously complex and difficult to model. But evidence that climate models realistically describe oceans is emerging from studies showing ocean warming. In a talk to the AAAS, Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist in the climate research division at Scripps Oceanographic Institute in San Diego, reported on a comparison of climate models and ocean data from the last 40 years. Barnett says he was “stunned” to see that the computer models reproduced the actual warming in every ocean. “The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/176 "2007-08-16T13:53:08Z")
I’d just like to pop in from the slack-jawed yokel’s seating section and say I am learning an incredible amount from this discussion, and thank the participants for the quality of the discourse. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/177 "2007-08-16T20:41:40Z")
I wrote: > [@intention](#): > > PS - I’d put more weight on GCM results if the programmers would perform the kind of Verification and Validation (V&V) and SQA (Software Quality Assurance) that we routinely perform on all mission critical software … but they don’t. In fact, whenever I bring this up on this board, people say it’s not necessary … not necessary? You’re asking me to bet billions of dollars on untested computer models, and even claiming that their results are “evidence”, when even the most routine, everyday, run-of-the-mill V&V & SQA has not been done? > > Riiiight, that’s a killer good plan … GIGObuster responded: [QUOTE=GIGObuster] Like if there was no check of computer models ever made: [http://whyfiles.org/218glo\_warm/index.php?g=2.txt](http://whyfiles.org/218glo_warm/index.php?g=2.txt) [/QUOTE] GIGObuster, I fear neither you nor the folks at the cite you provided have a clue about what V&V and SQA are. What you have linked to is a simplistic (and incorrect) test masquerading as a “check of computer models”. It is not V&V, nor is it SQA. When and if you finally understand what they are, please come back and give us an example of a GCM that has been subjected to these procedures. In the meantime, consider that the GCMs are carefully tuned to reproduce the past climate. If a model tuned to the past climate has any one of its components removed, of course it will not reproduce the past climate. Does this prove anything about the climate? Absolutely nothing. It only proves that if you tune a model to the past and then remove one of its pieces, it no longer is tuned to the past … gosh, that’s stunning and compelling “evidence” all right … I assume that, even though you know nothing about V&V and SQA, you can at least recognize that piece of circular reasoning when it is pointed out to you. w. PS - Your citation is a joke. It says the work it refers to was done “… using math of a complexity we couldn’t begin to grasp …” by “… a gang of brainy nerds …” So they are claiming that work that they admittedly don’t understand must be correct? … well, that would definitely convince anyone with half a brain … Next time, you might consider using a citation from someone who does understand the math. Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself about V&V and SQA before making any more foolish claims. You might start your research [here](http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/files/2007/02/vandvandsqapost.pdf), it discusses V&V and SQA as it relates to climate models. In addition, there is a bibliography on the subject [here.](http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2007/02/23/a-start-on-a-vv-and-sqa-bibliography/) Please let us know what you find out. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/178 "2007-08-16T21:22:53Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I’m not clear why you need a citation to these things, as they are common knowledge. Well, because it’s often somewhat difficult to figure out from your citeless assertions about “common knowledge” exactly what scientific claims from which particular studies or expositions you are referring to. > [@intention](#): > > However, for the question of the temperatures of the last decade, I refer you to either HadCRUT3 or GISS temperature dataset. Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. Could you please link to (and/or provide a bibliographic reference for) a specific source presenting the explanation about the temperature dataset(s) that you are endorsing when you claim that “adjusted for El Nino, temperatures have been stable for the last decade”? I mean, if this is “common knowledge” as you suggest, there must surely be something that you consider a reliable and thorough detailed exposition of it out there—either a presentation immediately comprehensible to the reasonably intelligent and well-informed layperson, or a published research paper. That is what I’m asking for when I ask you for cites. > [@intention](#): > > For the change in the direct solar contribution around 1985, I refer you the post saying: “Third: If you’re arguing that increased solar radiation is what’s causing increased global temperatures, how do you reconcile that with the findings mentioned in the OP that solar radiation has actually been decreasing rather than increasing?” Again, unfortunately, this is a very circuitous response to my cite request. What I was hoping for was a direct link to a scientific source whose statements on the subject are what you’re talking about. Specifically, the post of mine that you quoted from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=428441) was talking about [this OP](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8769734&postcount=1) which discussed [this BBC report](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm) which referred to [this 2007 study by Lockwood and Frohlich, “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature”](http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf) (PDF file). Am I to understand, **intention** , that the above paper by Lockwood and Frohlich is what you are presenting as your cite for your previous assertion “The claim has been made that solar influences went level about 1985 or so”? If the answer is no, I would very much appreciate it if you would provide a link to the actual scientific source that you **are** presenting as your cite for that assertion. > [@intention](#): > > At the low end of climate estimates, I have referred in the past to this study. You could also take a look at this post of mine, which refers to this study. For the high end, see the IPCC FAR, which gives a “likely” value of 0.5° to 1.2°/W-m2, says it is “unlikely” to be below 0.4°/W-m2, and that values over 1.2°/W-m2 “cannot be excluded”. Thank you! Those links are the sort of specific direct cites that I was looking for (and the linkless reference to the IPCC FAR is at least specific enough for me easily to [find it online](http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html)). The study in your first link, which you say is the source of your low-end estimate of 0.2°/W-m2 for climate sensitivity, is Sherwood Idso’s 1998 paper “CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change”. (By the way, can you tell me how exactly you got this 0.2° figure out of Idso’s paper? Idso seems to be arguing that the most likely value for temperature change in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about 0.4°, which as best as I can figure, if the forcing from the doubling is about 4 W-m2, would correspond to a value of about 0.1°/W-m2 for the sensitivity itself, an even lower low-end value than you suggest.) But Idso’s approach to estimating climate sensitivity, as [this exposition “Learning from a Simple Model” by Gavin Schmidt](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/) points out, is not generally accepted by mainstream climate scientists: > [@Gavin Schmidt](#): > > [T]here have been a few claims (notably from Steve Milloy or Sherwood Idso) that you can estimate climate sensitivity by dividing the change in temperature due to the greenhouse effect by the downwelling longwave radiation. This is not even close, as you can see by working it through here. So the low-end estimate of 0.2°/W-m2 for climate sensitivity that you derive from Idso’s work is not really part of the range accepted as likely in mainstream AGW research. That range, as you noted just now, bottoms out at around 0.4-0.5°/W-m2, and the best-estimate value within it is considered to be about 0.75°/W-m2. So the ultra-low-sensitivity scenario you suggested, in which anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions are not an important contributing factor in warming, isn’t actually accepted as plausible in the AGW hypothesis as currently formulated. So the question of which of the plausible values for climate sensitivity is the correct value is, in fact—and here comes the answer to your question! yay! 🙂 —a question about the details of the AGW hypothesis rather than about its fundamental nature. > [@intention](#): > > So you’re saying that climate model runs that indicate we’re going into an ice age in 50 years are evidence that we are going into an ice age? (I asked this before, and I would greatly appreciate if you’d actually answer the questions I ask … asking them twice is getting boring.) Sorry, but I can’t answer your questions until I know what you’re talking about. If you will please cite your source(s) for alleged “climate model runs that indicate we’re going into an ice age in 50 years”, I will read them and let you know what I think. > [@intention](#): > > [T]he computer models can only give us indications or understandings, we can certainly “take them into account”, but they cannot give us evidence, they cannot provide us with facts. If that’s how you feel about it, as I said, I certainly won’t argue with you about it. If you don’t think that mainstream climate science can be trusted because of its use of computer models, that’s your choice. My point is simply that if that’s how you feel about it, it’s meaningless to try to debate mainstream climate science with you. And that goes for the climate-science results you appear to endorse, as well as the ones you question. For instance, the NASA-funded Pielke et al. paper on land-use changes that we discussed above **also** depends for its conclusions on computer simulations. By your standards, then, the Pielke paper cannot provide us with any evidence or facts, so it can’t tell us anything meaningful about the scientific validity of the AGW hypothesis. There just ain’t no way to perform a controlled experiment on global climate. Nor is there at present a thoroughly well-understood physical model of all (or even most) of the features of global climate systems. Thus there is at present simply no way to do sustained large-scale climate science that doesn’t involve substantial dependence on computer simulations. If you think that that makes current mainstream climate-science research essentially worthless, that’s your privilege. But in that case, there’s really no point in my trying to discuss mainstream climate-science research with you. We have no common ground to argue from. We don’t even agree on the fundamental issues of admissible standards of evidence. Given our differing views on basic methodology, there is no way I could ever say something about the results of present-day climate science that you would be willing to agree with. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/179 "2007-08-16T21:24:52Z")
I have never before I have seen such stumbling and furious tap dancing to avoid what someone said. [QUOTE=intention] I wrote: GIGObuster responded: GIGObuster, I fear neither you nor the folks at the cite you provided have a clue about what V&V and SQA are. What you have linked to is a simplistic (and incorrect) test masquerading as a “check of computer models”. It is not V&V, nor is it SQA. When and if you finally understand what they are, please come back and give us an example of a GCM that has been subjected to these procedures. In the meantime, consider that the GCMs are carefully tuned to reproduce the past climate. If a model tuned to the past climate has any one of its components removed, of course it will not reproduce the past climate. Does this prove anything about the climate? Absolutely nothing. It only proves that if you tune a model to the past and then remove one of its pieces, it no longer is tuned to the past … gosh, that’s stunning and compelling “evidence” all right … I assume that, even though you know nothing about V&V and SQA, you can at least recognize that piece of circular reasoning when it is pointed out to you. w. PS - Your citation is a joke. It says the work it refers to was done “… using math of a complexity we couldn’t begin to grasp …” by “… a gang of brainy nerds …” [/quote] Why sure: “©2007, University of Wisconsin, Board of Regents.” > [@](#): > > So they are claiming that work that they admittedly don’t understand must be correct? … well, that would definitely convince anyone with half a brain … :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Next time, you might consider using a citation from someone who does understand the math. > > Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself about V&V and SQA before making any more foolish claims. You might start your research [here](http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/files/2007/02/vandvandsqapost.pdf), it discusses V&V and SQA as it relates to climate models. In addition, there is a bibliography on the subject [here.](http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2007/02/23/a-start-on-a-vv-and-sqa-bibliography/) Please let us know what you find out. Smoke screen for the point. The point still stands, propping up V&V & SQA is a smoke screen for the data at hand showing man made greenhouse gases as a big component of the current warming, When they tested models with and without the rising level of greenhouse gases, only the model runs with man-made levels of greenhouse gases matched actual ocean temperatures. There is nothing to stop skeptics on taking a look and finding an error on the **models** (yes that is plural) so we are not dealing with only the “secret” research you are stuck as being a big issue, it may be so, but the data is still there for others to check, what is sad about all this is that you are clearly now resorting to bully tactics in this discussion, the reason why I pointed to that cite was simply to show that it is simply not true at all to say that the computer models never had actual measurements or experimental results. Once again I’m not discussing V&V and SQA, but criticizing the idea that there is no way to test the models. The actions of the critic in the “secret” model case show that there is not a good reason to be hung up on that. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037/180 "2007-08-16T23:51:43Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] When they tested models with and without the rising level of greenhouse gases, only the model runs with man-made levels of greenhouse gases matched actual ocean temperatures. [/QUOTE] Of course it did, the model was constructed using man-made levels of greenhouse gases and correlated with past temperatures as one of the imputs. Saying that “only the model runs with man-made levels of greenhouse gases matched actual ocean temperatures” is trite and banal. Of course that is the case, because **that factor was added the model specifically to increase the match to temperature**. If model runs without man-made levels of greenhouse gases matched actual ocean temperatures then **man-made levels of greenhouse gases would never have been incorporated into the model in the first place**. I don’t think you understand how computer modelling is achieved. Models are constructed by alternately adding and removing an unspecified number of factors and seeing whether they improve the fit to whatever factor you are analysing. When a factor is put into the model if it improves the fit of the model with reality then it is left in the model. If it doesn’t improve the fit it is removed. The modellor then adds another factor and sees if it can be incorporated to improve the fit to reality and so forth. When they have a model that gives a satisfactory fit with reality they then stop adding data. The problem with claiming that this is somehow a attempt at falsifying the model should be obvious now that you know how models are constructed. The model is constructed to match an observed reality by continuously adding only individual factors to increase the match with reality. That inevitably means that when you remove any individual factor then of course it decreases the match with reality. It can’t be otheriwise. All you have done is reverse the mathematical process. Of course that is the case, because those factors were added the model **specifically to increase the match to temperature**. Or to put it another way, if model runs _without_ man-made levels of greenhouse gases matched actual ocean temperatures then man-made levels of greenhouse gases would never have been incorporated into the model in the first place. The whole process is totally circular and isn’t even logically valid, much less constituting a falsification attempt. **Kimstu** , are you able to meet my challenge? If you can tell me one other field where a hypotheis has been widely accpeted without making a single meaningful prediction that can be confirmed in the real world then I will accept this criticism. If not then I reject it out of hand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newsweek-cover-story-exposes-well-funded-global-warming-denial-machine/415037.md?page=10)